Post 83 is a long post. Go ahead and make your point again. Please be concise.
Moogly,
I offered five plus scientific evidences to support my belief of a past finite universe. You did not oppose any of those. You proposed a single scientific counter to show that the KCA was wrong.
Well I trashed your counter. Revealed your errors of assumption regarding it. You said nothing. You went back to your cuddle huddle to beat up some more straw man with your other reason-by-insult friends.
I’m fine if you want to leave it right there. It will become another data point in my case with abaddon. Along with DBT and skepticalbip.
remez from post 83 said:
No hand-waving on the line of scrimmage. You’ve been flagged.
I did more than reject your premise. I countered it. Thus you now have the burden to defend your insulting assertion………………
……against my evidence for a past finite universe. Specifically where was my evidence ignorant or self-deceitful? I provided several scientific supports. Let’s examine what you brought.
We’ll see.
I certainly claim the same, despite your apparent blind faith that theism is anti-scientific.
So……
Now let’s examine what we each provided for our perspective positions.
For your past eternal universe you offer……..
Very weak but your insults add a nice touch. Offering something that weak and then insulting my scientific prowess is priceless.
Here is where your weak evidence and reasoning fails…..
I don’t see any great scientific evidence here. I see emotional babble. But I am curious what you mean by “past finite” and “past eternal” universe. Is there something I am missing in the scientific literature. Is there a reference you can point me to concerning these phrases?
remez from post 83 said:
The first law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, and therefore is a physical law. Physical laws only apply within the arena of the space-time continuum. They can’t apply to the origin of the arena itself. The physical law of conservation logically can’t govern before the beginning of the physical universe or the causal conditions that would bring the physical universe into being, or apply outside the arena of the physical space-time continuum. The physical law of conservation only applies once the physical space-time continuum is in place and exists.
Seriously you’re scientifically literate …So ask yourself……
Why don’t the cosmologists regard the first law as violation of the SBBM?
Serious question.
They are now writing books about a beginning universe.
That started out okay talking about the laws of nature and physicality, but then you said they only apply to the spacetime continuum. If you have enough scientific knowledge you should understand that everything is physical. Even space is physical. Basically, anything that can be measured is physical. We’ve got time nailed down to 18 significant digits if memory serves.
Is there some other place you have in mind other than physical spacetime which is everywhere? Because that’s what we’re talking about, not some imagined or speculated other place and time. There isn’t any. Do you think that all that religious silliness about ghosts and heavens and hells and supernatural mysticism has you walking down the path of pseudo-knowledge? You are basically saying that your magic spaceman is real because we don't have any scientific laws concerning magic spacemen who live in spooky realms that are beyond present scientific knowledge. On this point we agree. Does that mean you still think succubi are real too?
remez from post 83 said:
Their efforts to explain it naturally have failed miserably, but their efforts DO acknowledge a past finite universe. The truth with your so called evidence for a past eternal universe is that you bought into some atheistic dogma. That you self-deluded yourself into believing. Just like you asserted that “religious faithers” do in your OP.
More emotional babble. There’s that “past finite” reference again. What does it mean scientifically?
remez from post 83 said:
So now ……
Let’s examine what you had to say about the evidence and reasoning…….
…..I provided.
?
??
???
What?
Nothing?
You provided absolutely nothing.
But your dogma still piled higher……………….
….and higher. Atheists continually delude themselves that their dreams of a dynamited KCA are real. Some actually have a blind faith that the law of conservation has done the job. No matter what reason is given to them they still have their blind faith that the KCA is dead and buried.
Further……
You claim you’re scientific. Yet your defense is supported by cookies, presents and reindeer. Against my 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, GTR, the BGV theorem, etc. Wake up already.
Aside from the emotional babble all you’ve done here is said I’m wrong, you haven’t provided any evidence, just lots of argument in the form of using science to disprove science. Why is it that creationists don’t see the contradiction? Creationists and mystics use science to attempt to justify their beliefs in magical beings. Typically, a creationist proceeds from his conclusion that there is a magical being living somehow and somewhere, existing outside spacetime and physical law, and then uses scientific laws to try to demonstrate how scientific knowledge is flawed. I’m surprised these folks aren’t arguing that the laws of science don’t demonstrate that snakes can’t talk.
remez from post 83 said:
So at this point, my evidence remains unchallenged and yours has been sacked. Care to try again?
next...........
Absolute certainty is only found in mathematics and logic. I can go with your “reasonable certainty” for now. All belief should have sufficient reason. Meaning it is more plausible than the alternatives and beyond a reasonable doubt.
So this…………….
….is another self-delusion. Yet you seem so ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of yourself.
It was years ago. You forgot my MO was “tone for tone.” Well thanks for trying. You can put me back on ignore and go rejoin your atheistic cuddle huddle.
It’s nice to see that you took to heart and brain our previous discussion about absolute certainty vs reasonable certainty. You’ll get a lot more mileage out of arguments from reasonable certainty. It’s also humorous how you are now accusing me of being the absolutist. That's cute. It must have been quite the reasonable impression I made on you and I feel quite good about that. You’re a bit closer to grasping scientific understanding now that you’ve moved away from all that absolutist hooey you were spouting about earlier.
I asked you in a previous post if you would please tell me when you thought the BB ended. You never responded so I’ll ask again here. Do you think the BB ended, or do you think we are actually living in the BB? It’s a good way to think about that strange affection you have for common parlance and use of the words “beginning” and “end.” I was able to help kick you away from absolutism, maybe I’ll get lucky again and I’ll see you moving away from this whole semantic tempest in a teacup concerning “beginning.” I probably shouldn’t hope to be so fortunate.
I didn’t see the five scientific evidences you said were in your post 83. If you want to list them for me I would be happy to address them. I included your entire post 83 and don't see the five evidences you claimed were there in that post.
